IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DANIEL T. YEAGER,1 §
§ No. 227, 2021
Petitioner/Respondent Below, §
Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of
§ the State of Delaware
v. §
§ File No. CK10-02177
TIANA D. FISHER, § Petition Nos. 20-20684, 20-25638,
§ 20-27061, 21-00055, 21-01604,
Respondent/Petitioner Below, § 20-26029, 20-23713, and 20-18874
Appellee. §
Submitted: July 30, 2021
Decided: August 12, 2021
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VAUGHN and MONTGOMERY-REEVES,
Justices.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response,
it appears to the Court that:
(1) On July 19, 2021, the appellant, Daniel T. Yeager, filed a notice of
appeal from Family Court orders dated and docketed on June 9, 2021. A timely
notice of appeal was due in this Court by July 9, 2021.2 The Senior Court Clerk
issued a notice directing Yeager to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed as untimely filed. In his response to the notice to show cause, Yeager,
1
The Court assigns pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
2
Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(i).
who is incarcerated, states that the prison was on lockdown at the time he was
scheduled to see the notary and still is not fully open.
(2) Time is a jurisdictional requirement.3 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Court within the applicable time period in order to be effective.4 An
appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the
jurisdictional requirements.5 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to
file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court-related personnel, an untimely
appeal cannot be considered.6
(3) Yeager has not demonstrated that his failure to file a timely notice of
appeal is attributable to court-related personnel.7 Department of Correction
personnel are not court-related personnel.8 Consequently, this case does not fall
within the exception to the general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of
appeal. The appeal must be dismissed.
3
Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
4
Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).
5
Ward v. Taylor, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1 (Del. Sept. 30, 2019); Smith v. State, 47 A.3d
481, 486-87 (Del. 2012).
6
Ward, 2019 WL 4784943, at *1; Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
7
See, e.g., Bissoon v. State, 2017 WL 4111332, at *1 (Del. Sept. 15, 2017) (dismissing
untimely appeal in which the appellant asserted that the prison law library did not timely
respond to his requests for copying and notarization); Schafferman v. State, 2016 WL
5929953, at *1 (Del. Oct. 11, 2016) (dismissing untimely appeal in which the appellant
argued that prison personnel prevented him from filing a timely notice of appeal). See also
Tuohy v. State, 2019 WL 6606356, at *1 (Del. Dec. 4, 2019) (dismissing untimely appeal
in which the appellant contended that he could not access the law library to prepare his
notice of appeal because the prison was on institutional lockdown).
8
Bissoon, 2017 WL 2017 WL 4111332, at *1.
2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court
Rule 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves
Justice
3